
The A5 about to be erected at the launch pad.
Roll control... Do you mean the "tails"? - Which are, AFAIK, only installed on the 1.2PP.Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The roll control of the core stage of Angara-5, Angara-5P, Angara-7, ... is sure very interesting.
Does everybody think what I am thinking of?
Here's the best picture I have of the tail section of the Angara-1.2PP. Interesting.
Mike E wrote:Roll control... Do you mean the "tails"? - Which are, AFAIK, only installed on the 1.2PP.Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The roll control of the core stage of Angara-5, Angara-5P, Angara-7, ... is sure very interesting.
Does everybody think what I am thinking of?
Here's the best picture I have of the tail section of the Angara-1.2PP. Interesting.
?
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Mike E wrote:Roll control... Do you mean the "tails"? - Which are, AFAIK, only installed on the 1.2PP.Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The roll control of the core stage of Angara-5, Angara-5P, Angara-7, ... is sure very interesting.
Does everybody think what I am thinking of?
Here's the best picture I have of the tail section of the Angara-1.2PP. Interesting.
?
A little bit of elaboration on my previous post:
- Angara-5 core has no roll control tail surfaces.
- They say it uses thrusters for roll control.
- I am not sure if I see two thrusters or four. Whether there are two thrusters or four thrusters, they are positioned asymmetrically.
- Ignoring hidden aspects of the design, the asymetrical positioning of roll thrusters is "wasteful".
- If the Angara-5 core can use roll control thrusters for roll control, why did Angara-1.2PP and Naro-1 needed roll control tail surfaces. Is it just because of the fact that the Angara-5 core at separation is lighter and has a lower moment of inertia around the roll axis, having already burned some of its propellants, than Angara-1.2PP at launch with full tanks? What other reason can there be?
- How about Angara-7? It's core surely would't fire before separation; so it would even be heavier and with a larger moment of inertia around the roll axis than Angara-1.2PP at launch.
- Very interesting.
Mike E wrote:Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Mike E wrote:Roll control... Do you mean the "tails"? - Which are, AFAIK, only installed on the 1.2PP.Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The roll control of the core stage of Angara-5, Angara-5P, Angara-7, ... is sure very interesting.
Does everybody think what I am thinking of?
Here's the best picture I have of the tail section of the Angara-1.2PP. Interesting.
?
A little bit of elaboration on my previous post:
- Angara-5 core has no roll control tail surfaces.
- They say it uses thrusters for roll control.
- I am not sure if I see two thrusters or four. Whether there are two thrusters or four thrusters, they are positioned asymmetrically.
- Ignoring hidden aspects of the design, the asymetrical positioning of roll thrusters is "wasteful".
- If the Angara-5 core can use roll control thrusters for roll control, why did Angara-1.2PP and Naro-1 needed roll control tail surfaces. Is it just because of the fact that the Angara-5 core at separation is lighter and has a lower moment of inertia around the roll axis, having already burned some of its propellants, than Angara-1.2PP at launch with full tanks? What other reason can there be?
- How about Angara-7? It's core surely would't fire before separation; so it would even be heavier and with a larger moment of inertia around the roll axis than Angara-1.2PP at launch.
- Very interesting.
Yep, and it doesn't need them...
It appears so, most launch vehicles do if their engines aren't up to the task.
There appears to be three, which is odd...
Probably that reason... Plus, with more cores, there are more roll thrusters.
Mike E wrote:On what, the three thrusters?
Kyo wrote:Finally, a vid on the A5.
http://www.1tv.ru/news/techno/274476.
Kyo wrote:Euronews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byae093d9R0
kvs wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lDydw8QaFU0
Mounting on the launchpad.
|
|